Heather Cox Richardson's "Letters from an American"

Linked from her footnotes:

Disgusting, terrifying, and immoral.

This needs to be stopped. Now.

The first action is simple. CEOs should now, this summer, this month, next week, sign a pledge not to use labor from concentration camps. It could be as simple as that: “On behalf of my firm I promise not to use labor from concentration camps nor to cooperate with any firm that does.”

17 Likes

They already use prison labor and sweat shops. Don’t hold your breath.

15 Likes

July 6, 2025 (Sunday)

At least 80 people are dead and more than 40 are still missing in Central Texas after almost a foot (30 centimeters) of rain caused flash floods overnight on Friday. Most of the deaths were in Kerr County, where the Guadalupe River rose 26 feet (8 meters) in 45 minutes, engulfing a Christian girls’ camp.

Even as rescuers search for survivors, the disaster has highlighted the dangers of MAGA governance. The steps that left people in the path of the floods on Friday are unclear, but observers are already pointing to the administration’s cuts to government as well as the lack of systems that could have provided earlier warnings to those in the path of the floods.

Immediately after the catastrophe became apparent, Texas officials began to blame cuts to the National Weather Service (NWS)—part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—for causing inaccurate forecasts. The “Department of Government Efficiency” cut about 600 staffers from the NWS. After the cuts, the understaffed agency warned that “severe shortages” of meteorologists would hurt weather forecasting.

All five living former directors of the NWS warned in May that the cuts “[leave] the nation’s official weather forecasting entity at a significant deficit…just as we head into the busiest time for severe storm predictions like tornadoes and hurricanes…. Our worst nightmare is that weather forecast offices will be so understaffed that there will be needless loss of life.”

But former NWS officials maintain the forecasts were as accurate as possible and noted the storm escalated abruptly. They told Christopher Flavelle of the New York Times that the problem appeared to be that NWS had lost the staffers who would typically communicate with local authorities to spread the word of dangerous conditions. Molly Taft at Wired confirmed that NWS published flash flood warnings but safety officials didn’t send out public warnings until hours later.

Meanwhile, Kerr County’s most senior elected official, Judge Rob Kelly, focused on local officials, telling Flavelle that the county did not have a warning system because such systems are expensive and “[t]axpayers won’t pay for it.”

Officials will continue to examine the crisis in Texas but, coming as it did after so many deep cuts to government, it has opened up questions about the public cost of those cuts. Project 2025 called for breaking up and downsizing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, claiming its six main offices—including the National Weather Service—“form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity,” by which it meant the fossil fuel industry.

CNN’s Andrew Freedman, Emma Tucker, and Mary Gilbert note that several NWS offices across the country are so understaffed they can no longer operate around the clock, and many are no longer able to launch the weather balloons that provide critical data. The journalists also note that the Trump administration’s 2026 budget calls for eliminating “all of NOAA’s weather and climate research labs along with institutes jointly run with universities around the country.”

Brad Plummer of the New York Times noted that the budget reconciliation bill passed by Republicans last week and signed into law on Friday boosts fossil fuels and destroys government efforts to address climate change, even as scientists warn of the acute dangers we face from extreme heat, wildfires, storms, and floods like those in Texas. Scott Dance of the Washington Post added yesterday that the administration has slashed grants for studying climate change and has limited or even ended access to information about climate science, taking down websites and burying reports.

When a reporter asked Trump, “Are you investigating whether some of the cuts to the federal government left key vacancies at the national weather service or the emergency coordination?” he responded: “They didn’t. I’ll tell you, if you look at that water situation that all is and that was really the Biden setup. That was not our setup. But I wouldn’t blame Biden for it either. I would just say this is a 100-year catastrophe and it’s just so horrible to watch.”

The tragedy in Texas is the most visible illustration of the MAGA attempt to destroy the modern U.S. government, but it is not the only one.

On July 2, Gabe Cohen of CNN reported that state and local officials are meeting a “wall of silence” from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Cohen reported that FEMA leaders have ordered FEMA personnel to stop communicating with the Office of Management and Budget, the National Security Council, members of Congress, and state and local partners, leaving those communications up to the political appointees running the agency. FEMA is housed in the Department of Homeland Security, whose secretary, Kristi Noem, is tightening her control over the agency and recently called for the firing of employees who “who don’t like us.”

On June 30, the medical journal The Lancet published an analysis of the impact of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and consequences of its dismantling. The study concluded that from 2001 through 2021, programs funded by USAID prevented nearly 92 million deaths in 133 countries. It estimates that the cuts the Trump administration has made to USAID will result in more than 14 million deaths in the next five years. About 4.5 million will be children under 5.

On June 30, Dr. Steven H. Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University warned in the New York Times that a health catastrophe is brewing in the U.S. as well, as “[t]he administration has upended the operation of almost every agency that deals with our health and medical care, leaving behind fewer staff members and programs to address critical needs, and changing policies in ways that could endanger us all.” Woolf lists cuts of 39% to the institute that researches heart disease, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and diabetes; 37% to the institute that researches cancer; 40% to the institute that researches stroke, 40% to the institute that researches Alzheimer’s; 38% to the institute that researches drug overdoses and suicide; and 36% to the institute that researches covid, flu, and pneumonia.

Those cuts, along with the deregulation of industries that pollute our environment and the destruction of programs and agencies that address mental illness, suicide, chronic diseases, poisoning, car accidents, and drowning, Woolf writes, are putting Americans at risk. In May, Laura Ungar and Michelle R. Smith of the Associated Press noted the elimination of 20,000 jobs at national health agencies as well as cuts of $11 billion in covid-era funding to state and local health departments that inspect restaurants, monitor wastewater, and so on.

In a New York Times op-ed on July 4, Dr. Perri Klass added that changes to the childhood vaccine schedule under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. threaten to bring back diseases that routine immunizations had all but eliminated in the U.S.

Yesterday, Deidre McPhillips of CNN reported that measles cases in the U.S. have surged to a record high since the country declared the disease eradicated twenty-five years ago. There have been at least 1,277 confirmed cases of measles in the U.S. this year, passing the previous record of 1,274 set in 2019 and likely a “severe undercount.”

On July 2, Nahal Toosi of Politico reported that cuts to the National Security Council (NSC) have created a “dysfunctional” policymaking process. The NSC is supposed to coordinate policymaking across the different parts of the government. But Toosi reported that when the Pentagon recently announced it was reviewing whether the AUKUS security pact between the U.S., Australia, and the United Kingdom advances Trump’s “America First” agenda, the announcement came from Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby without input from other key U.S. officials, who were blindsided by the move.

The acting national security advisor, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has downsized the NSC and held so few meetings that career staffers are kept in the dark and others are jockeying for power. One person told Toosi, “It’s Game of Thrones politics over there.” Under Trump, the NSC has gone from being a body that can give the president advice to one designed simply to advance the president’s agenda.

And that is the point of the dismantling of modern government systems under Trump: to give him and his loyalists the power to control the country. On July 3, Charlie Savage of the New York Times reported on letters Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote to companies like Google and Apple, claiming Trump has the constitutional power not just to ignore laws himself, but to authorize others to ignore them too.

Last year, Congress passed a law banning TikTok in the U.S. unless its China-based parent company, ByteDance, sold its stake in the platform to a non-Chinese company within nine months, or twelve if a sale was in progress. The Supreme Court upheld the law unanimously and TikTok disappeared from U.S. app stores.

But when he took office, Trump told the Department of Justice not to enforce the law for 75 days while his administration reviewed it. He also told Bondi to tell companies they can continue to carry the TikTok app “without incurring any legal liability,” no matter what the law says.

The letters she wrote, newly available through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, suggest Trump can ignore the law because of his “unique constitutional responsibility for the national security of the United States, the conduct of foreign policy, and other vital executive functions.” The law banning TikTok— that Congress passed, President Joe Biden signed, and the Supreme Court upheld 9–0— had to give way, she wrote, to Trump’s “core presidential national security and foreign affairs powers.”

16 Likes

That was a tough read. Grimmer and grimmer the world turns.

15 Likes

12 Likes

Relevant @Kii post in The Goddamn Trump Administration thread:

12 Likes

Another example of “leopards eating faces”, as Kerr County is deep red.

Just like Trump’s, “if we stop testing COVID, numbers won’t go up”, this is a bunch of fossil fuel shills saying, “if we stop researching climate change, it isn’t happening”.

So, now are we in a constitutional crisis?

16 Likes

July 7, 2025 (Monday)

At about 10:30 this morning local time, heavily armed masked agents in trucks, armored vehicles, a helicopter, on foot, and on horseback, accompanied by a gun mounted on a truck raided the MacArthur Park area of Los Angeles. Journalist Mel Buer reported that agents from Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), the National Guard, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) brought what he called a “massive federal presence.”

Fox News Channel personnel were embedded with the raiders and broadcast throughout the operation, suggesting that it was designed for the media as a show of force to intimidate opponents. CBP brought its own press team, and its people were also taking photos of bystanders. After Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass arrived and spoke with Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino, the agents left. It is not clear that there was a specific target for the raid, or that anyone was arrested.

Later, Bovino told Bill Melugin of the Fox News Channel, “I don’t work for Karen Bass. Better get used to us now, cause this is going to be normal very soon. We will go anywhere, anytime we want in Los Angeles.”

Immigrants rights groups sued Bovino last week to block what they call an “ongoing pattern and practice of flouting the Constitution and federal law” during immigration raids.

Steve Beynon of Military dot com reports that about 70 National Guard troops have been deployed to the new detention facility in the Florida Everglades as the administration “leans harder on the military to enforce its nationwide immigration crackdown.” Unlike the National Guard troops Trump federalized in Los Angeles, these troops are operating as state troops under Florida governor Ron DeSantis. Another 8,500 active-duty and National Guard troops are stationed along the border between the U.S. and Mexico.

The Trump administration is also sending 200 Marines to Florida to aid ICE, part of a push to increase deportations by using active-duty troops.

The U.S. Marine Corps has launched a pilot program to station ICE agents at Camp Pendleton in California, Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, and Marine Corps Base Hawaii. Sarah Rumpf-Whitten of Fox News writes that the plan is to strengthen security at those bases, although University of Tampa defense professor Abby Hall Blanco pointed out: "It gives kind of an odd impression that the Marine Corps is not handling its own security sufficiently. Having known quite a few Marines in my time, I can’t imagine that they would find that to be a particularly flattering interpretation.”

As Harvard sociologist Theda Skocpol pointed out in Talking Points Memo, it appears that officials in the Trump administration are using immigration as a way to establish a police state. Indeed, they are using the concept that presidents have control of foreign affairs as a way to work around the laws in place to prevent a dictatorship.

In its 2024 Donald J. Trump v. United States decision, the Supreme Court majority held that a former president has “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” as well as “presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” In April 2025 the court specified that it considered foreign affairs to fall within a president’s constitutional authority, writing in Noem v. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia that the executive branch was owed “deference…in the conduct of foreign affairs.”

Although the Framers of the Constitution put the power to make laws in the hands of Congress, they divided power in foreign affairs between Congress and the president. Almost immediately, presidents began to assert their authority over foreign affairs, noting that the Constitution gave them power to appoint ambassadors and negotiate treaties and pointing to the president’s role as commander-in-chief of the Army. The branches have tussled over this power ever since, but as James Goldgeiger and Elizabeth N. Saunders wrote in Foreign Affairs, presidential power over foreign affairs has grown dramatically since 2000.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, members of Congress were unwilling to appear soft on terror and so allowed President George W. Bush great leeway in the nation’s “war on terror,” even after it became clear that Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 was failing. In Foreign Affairs last month, Saunders wrote that a lack of accountability for either the failures of the Iraq War or the 2008 international financial crisis fed the idea that the president could make sweeping decisions about both foreign intervention and the international economy without check by Congress.

On February 12, 2025, the Trump administration made clear that its members intended to expand Trump’s power by pushing the boundaries of what foreign affairs entails. In an executive order, Trump claimed the Constitution “vests the power to conduct foreign policy in the President of the United States.”

Trump’s actual work in foreign affairs has been different from what he promised during his presidential campaign. His vow that he could end Russia’s war against Ukraine with one phone call has resulted only in Russian president Vladimir Putin’s accelerating his attacks on Ukraine. As foreign affairs journalist Anne Applebaum wrote on July 4 in The Atlantic, it is clear that Putin believes he can conquer all of Ukraine because Trump is abandoning the longstanding U.S. bipartisan support for Ukraine and pivoting the U.S. to back Russia.

Last week the administration said it would not send Ukraine a large shipment of weapons already funded under President Joe Biden. It claimed that U.S. stockpiles of weapons are insufficient, a claim former Biden officials and independent analysts contradict. Applebaum notes that Russia has interpreted the change as a sign that the U.S. is ending its support for Ukraine.

The U.S. is also essentially lifting the economic sanctions that have hamstrung Russia’s economy. By not adjusting sanctions to combat developing Russian workarounds, the administration is allowing Russia to rebuild its economy. In addition, the Trump administration has stopped countering Russian disinformation around the world, while Trump appointees, including Trump’s main negotiator with Russia, Steve Witkoff, regularly parrot Russian propaganda.

Trump’s launching of strikes against Iran’s nuclear weapon production sites without input from Congress earned pushback from congress members who noted that the president’s authority to launch emergency operations depends on an actual emergency. Trump’s own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, told Congress in March that the Intelligence Community assessed Iran was not, in fact, building a nuclear weapon.

Then Trump’s claim he had “totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program turned out to be exaggerated, although as journalists questioned his statement, the administration doubled down on it. Today, Barak Ravid of Axios reported that Israeli officials believe Trump will green-light further Israeli attacks on Iran. Trump has said twice since the U.S. strikes that the U.S. could attack Iran again if Iran renews its nuclear program.

But the claim to domestic power based in the president’s alleged right to control over foreign affairs has fueled much of the administration’s domestic agenda. The administration claimed the power to render undocumented Venezuelans to the notorious terrorist CECOT prison in El Salvador by arguing that the Venezuelan government was sending members of the Tren de Aragua gang to invade the U.S. After wrongfully delivering Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in violation of a court order, the administration claimed courts could not order him returned to the U.S. because that order would interfere with Trump’s ability to conduct foreign affairs.

Documents filed in court today said Salvadoran officials told the United Nations that the U.S. retained jurisdiction over the migrants it sent to El Salvador, undermining the administration’s insistence that it has no control over migrants once they are out of U.S. territory. El Salvador simply had an agreement with the U.S. to use the Salvadoran prison system to detain U.S. prisoners, they said. “In this context, the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities, by virtue of international agreements signed and in accordance with the principles of sovereignty and international cooperation in criminal matters.”

In a lawsuit against the administration, Abrego Garcia says he was tortured in El Salvador, severely beaten, deprived of sleep, inadequately fed, denied bathroom facilities, and tortured psychologically. He says he lost 31 pounds in two weeks.

Today the administration ended temporary protection from deportation for about 72,000 migrants from Honduras and another 4,000 from Nicaragua. The decision strips them of their legal status and echoes similar decisions made about migrants from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Haiti, Nepal, and Venezuela. A federal court has blocked the early termination of protected status for Haitians.

17 Likes

So, they’re sending ICE goons to help “protect”…< checks notes > … the US Marines. Hoo haa!

We know they’re already trying to deport the family of service members. Are they going to deport actual service members next?

17 Likes

That’s already happening.

17 Likes

I guess I should have clarified to ask: are they going to depart active service members who are not citizens?

9 Likes

This is the real quesiton.

11 Likes

Of course they will. The question is not if, but when.

12 Likes

July 8, 2025 (Tuesday)

One hundred and eleven people are dead and more than 160 are still missing in Texas after Friday’s tragic flood.
​​
“‘[W]ho’s to blame?’” Texas governor Greg Abbott repeated back to a reporter. “That’s the word choice of losers.” “Every football team makes mistakes,” he continued, referring to Texas’s popular sport. “The losing teams are the ones that try to point out who’s to blame. The championship teams are the ones that say, ‘Don’t worry about it, ma’am, we’ve got this.’”

Abbott’s defensive answer reveals the dilemma MAGA Republicans find themselves in after the cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service that came before the Texas disaster. Scott Calvert, John West, Jim Carlton, and Joe Barrett of the Wall Street Journal reported that after a deadly flood in 1987, officials in Kerr County applied for a grant to install a flood warning system, but their application was denied. They considered installing one paid for by the county but decided against it. Then county commissioner Tom Moser told the reporters: “It was probably just, I hate to say the word, priorities. Trying not to raise taxes.”

Since 1980, Republican politicians have won voters by promising to cut taxes they claimed funded wasteful programs for women and racial and ethnic minorities. Cutting government programs would save money, they said, enabling hardworking Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. But leaders recognized that Republican voters actually depended on government programs, so they continued to fund them even as they passed tax cuts that moved more than $50 trillion from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top 1%.

Now, in Trump’s second term, MAGA Republicans are turning Republican rhetoric into reality, forcing Americans to grapple with what those cuts really mean for their lives.

Today the Supreme Court cleared the way for the administration to fire large numbers of employees at 19 different federal agencies and to reorganize them while litigation against those firings moves forward, although it required the administration to act in ways “consistent with applicable law.” A lower court had blocked the firings during litigation. Ann E. Marimow of the Washington Post notes that this court has repeatedly sided with President Donald Trump as he slashes the federal government. The court said it is not expressing a view on the legality of the cuts at this time.

The administration’s cuts were in the news today as Marisa Kabas of The Handbasket reported that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has just 86 people deployed in Texas today although Trump declared a disaster on Sunday. At a press opportunity at a cabinet meeting today, Trump said it wasn’t the right time to talk about his plans to phase out FEMA.

The administration is getting pushback in a number of other places as well, including from medical organizations. Yesterday the American Academy of Pediatricians, the American College of Physicians, and four other groups sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over the changes Kennedy has made to the vaccine advisory panel, to the availability of covid vaccines, and to vaccine recommendations. The lawsuit calls those changes "unlawful” and “unilateral” and says they violate the Administrative Procedure Act.

Just who is in charge of the administration remains unclear. In the New York Times yesterday, Jason Zengerle pointed to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller as the “final word” on White House policy. Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem defers to him. Attorney General Pam Bondi “is so focused on preparing for and appearing on Fox News that she has essentially ceded control of the Department of Justice” to him. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles is concentrating on “producing a reality TV show every day,” a Trump advisor told Zengerle.

So Miller, with his knack for flattering his boss, wields power.

Meanwhile, at the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth did not inform the White House before he stopped the shipment of weapons to Ukraine last week. Natasha Bertrand and Zachary Cohen of CNN reported today that Hegseth’s lack of a chief of staff or trusted advisors means he has no one to urge him to coordinate with other government partners. Trump has ordered Hegseth to restart some of the shipments. When a reporter asked the president today who had authorized the pause, Trump answered: “I don’t know, why don’t you tell me?”

At today’s press opportunity, Trump was erratic, at one point veering off into a discussion of whether he should put gold leaf on the moldings in the room’s corners.

The administration has so few successes to celebrate that, as Jarrett Renshaw of Reuters reported today, it is claiming credit for investments that were actually made under former president Joe Biden. A government website touting the “Trump effect” claims more than $2.6 trillion in U.S. investments, but Renshaw found that more than $1.3 trillion of those investments originated under Biden or were routine spending. One company has warned that its pledge of investments worth $50 billion is threatened by Trump’s policies.

When asked why the administration had taken credit for projects that happened under Biden, White House officials said “the final investment decisions were announced under [Trump’s] watch and prove his economic policies are triggering U.S. investment.” Renshaw noted that “[i]t was not clear in many cases what role, if any, Trump or his policies played in getting the deals across the line.”

Instead of embracing proven economic policies, the administration appears to be turning to ideologically based ideas that seem far fetched. Today, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins rejected the idea that the government would find a way to protect undocumented agricultural workers. “There will be no amnesty,” she said. “The mass deportations continue, but in a strategic way. And we move the workforce towards automation and 100% American participation, which again with 34 million people, able-bodied adults on Medicaid, we should be able to do that fairly quickly.”

The administration is now facing a rebellion from MAGA supporters who expected that, once in power, a Trump administration would release information about those men implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal as people for whom Epstein provided underage girls. MAGA loyalists maintained the “deep state” was hiding the list to protect unnamed Democratic politicians, and MAGA leaders fed the conspiracy theory to stoke anger at the Democrats.

Once in power, though, Trump officials have failed to produce a list of Epstein’s clients. MAGA loyalists have now turned their anger on those officials, especially Attorney General Pam Bondi, who said in February that the Epstein list “is sitting on my desk right now” and who now maintains that no such list exists.

Perhaps to distract their supporters from the issue, the Fox News Channel today announced that the FBI is launching criminal investigations of former Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan and former FBI director James Comey over their investigation of ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian operatives.

The Fox News Channel also announced that the White House has waived executive privilege for former president Biden’s White House physician Kevin O’Connor, who had asked to postpone his testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee about former president Biden’s mental acuity and use of an autopen. On Saturday, O’Connor’s lawyer wrote to committee chair James Comer (R-KY) asking for the postponement, noting: “We are unaware of any prior occasion on which a Congressional Committee has subpoenaed a physician to testify about the treatment of an individual patient. And the notion that a Congressional Committee would do so without any regard whatsoever for the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship is alarming.”

As its popularity sinks, the administration appears to be turning to extraordinary measures to enforce its will. Ellen Nakashima, Warren P. Strobel, and Aaron Schaffer of the Washington Post reported today that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has tried to get access to emails and chats of people working in the Intelligence Community in order to root out those perceived as insufficiently loyal to Trump.

Gabbard’s press secretary claimed the effort was designed to “end the politicization and weaponization of intelligence against Americans,” but Representative Jim Himes (D-CT), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told the reporters that Trump’s loyalists “zeal to root out ‘politicization” “often seems to be shorthand for anything less than unconditional support for the president.” He noted their effort risks “creating an echo chamber within the intelligence community or creating counterintelligence risks.”

The Internal Revenue Service today changed longstanding policy to say that churches can now endorse political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status. According to Gary Grumbach and Dareh Gregorian of NBC News, the rule prohibiting churches from endorsing candidates is rarely enforced, and Trump, whose strongest supporters are white evangelical Protestants, has called for an end to it.

A judge will have to agree to the change.

The administration’s show of force in Los Angeles yesterday, when immigration officers and about 90 National Guard members descended on MacArthur Park with 17 Humvees and four tactical vehicles in what looked like a military operation, appears to have been designed to intimidate immigrants and Trump’s opponents.

And today, Trump suggested he could take over New York City if voters elect Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. He then suggested the administration could take over Washington, D.C., as well. “We could run D.C. I mean we’re, we’re looking at D.C. We don’t want crime in D.C. We want the city to run well,” he told reporters. "We would run it so good, it would be run so proper, we’d get the best person to run it…. We want a capital that’s run flawlessly, and it wouldn’t be hard for us to do it.”

16 Likes

That is such callous bullshit. People dying and others losing all their possessions is not a game. Not even the way football is worshipped here.
When he comes up for reelection, I hope there are lots of ads pointing out that when he was asked who’s to blame for the deaths of over 100 people, including dozens of children, Abbott chose to compare mass deaths to losing a football game. Fuck he is such an asshole

20 Likes

It’s also hypocritical. There was no shortage of criticism from Abbott’s office of the Biden Administration’s response to Hurrican Beryl last year.

19 Likes

All I heard from that is “Republicans are losers.” He is literally using this tragedy as an opportunity to lie and blame Democrats. And he’s doing nothing. loser.

16 Likes

A fat lot of good that’ll do you if you’re dead or so infirmed all you’re paying for is staying alive. But, at least you stuck it to those poors and minorities, right?

He thinks this makes him sound tough, but it makes him sound so impotent – he essentially admitted that he doesn’t know what anybody under him is doing, and has no real ability to control them.

Fucking Alan Dershowitz wrote this. I guess it’s fine now that it’s Trump doing this. But setting this aside, doesn’t doctor-patient confidentiality override any claims of executive privilege here?

12 Likes

Probably not. Doctor-patient communications carry some limited privilege, but that can be overriden by subpoena, and it is all the time, in lawsuits where a medical diagnosis is a relevant issue in the lawsuit. Assuming Biden was seen by the White House physician in D.C., D.C. law would cover this, which says:

In the District of Columbia, medical records are protected by a doctor-patient privilege set forth in DC Code, sec. 14-307. Unless the person who is the subject of the records or that person’s legal representative consents, a doctor or mental health professional cannot disclose any information, confidential in its nature, obtained while attending the person in a professional capacity that was necessary to enable the doctor or mental health professional to act in a professional capacity. Therefore subpoenas for medical records are issued only if the Court approves a motion for issuance of a subpoena for medical records. The completed subpoena should be attached to the motion so that the Judge can authorize issuance of the subpoena.

So in this case, if Biden’s health status is a legitimate issue in whatever bullshit hearings the House is conducting on this, they can probably legally subpoena the White House physician’s records and communications. Executive privilege would probably be the stronger privilege here. But . . . executive privilege isn’t something that’s explicitly in the Constitution. It’s more of a tradition under the spirit of separation of powers.

13 Likes

July 9, 2025 (Wednesday)

On July 9, 1868, Americans changed the U.S. Constitution for the fourteenth time, adapting our foundational document to construct a new nation without systematic Black enslavement.

In 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution had prohibited slavery on the basis of race, but it did not prevent the establishment of a system in which Black Americans continued to be unequal. Backed by President Andrew Johnson, who had taken over the presidency after actor John Wilkes Booth murdered President Abraham Lincoln, white southern Democrats had done their best to push their Black neighbors back into subservience. So long as southern states had abolished enslavement, repudiated Confederate debts, and nullified the ordinances of secession, Johnson was happy to readmit them to full standing in the Union, still led by the very men who had organized the Confederacy and made war on the United States.

Northern Republican lawmakers refused. There was no way they were going to rebuild southern society on the same blueprint as existed before the Civil War, especially since the upcoming 1870 census would count Black Americans as whole persons for the first time in the nation’s history, giving southern states more power in Congress and the Electoral College after the war than they had had before it. Having just fought a war to destroy the South’s ideology, they were not going to let it regrow in peacetime.

Congress rejected Johnson’s plan for Reconstruction.

But then congressmen had to come up with their own. After months of hearings and debate, they proposed amending the Constitution to settle the outstanding questions of the war. Chief among these was how to protect the rights of Black Americans in states where they could neither vote nor testify in court or sit on a jury to protect their own interests.

Congress’s solution was the Fourteenth Amendment.

It took on the infamous 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision declaring that Black men "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens.”

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The amendment also addressed the Dred Scott decision in another profound way. In 1857, southerners and Democrats who were adamantly opposed to federal power controlled the Supreme Court. They backed states’ rights. So the Dred Scott decision did more than read Black Americans out of our history: it dramatically circumscribed Congress’s power.

The Dred Scott decision declared that democracy was created at the state level, by those people in a state who were allowed to vote. In 1857 this meant white men, almost exclusively. If those people voted to do something widely unpopular—like adopting human enslavement, for example—they had the right to do so. People like Abraham Lincoln pointed out that such domination by states would eventually mean that an unpopular minority could take over the national government, forcing their ideas on everyone else, but defenders of states’ rights stood firm.

And so the Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal government the power to protect individuals even if their state legislatures had passed discriminatory laws. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” it said. And then it went on to say that “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

The principles behind the Fourteenth Amendment were behind the 1870 creation of the Department of Justice, whose first job was to bring down the Ku Klux Klan terrorists in the South.

Those same principles took on profound national significance in the post–World War II era, when the Supreme Court began to use the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment aggressively to apply the protections in the Bill of Rights to the states. The civil rights decisions of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, including the Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing segregation in public schools, come from this doctrine. Under it, the federal government took up the mantle of protecting the rights of individual Americans in the states from the whims of state legislatures.

Opponents of these new civil rights protections quickly began to object that such decisions were “legislating from the bench,” rather than permitting state legislatures to make their own laws. They began to call for “originalism,” the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted only as the Framers had intended when they wrote it, an argument that focused on the creation of law at the state level. Famously, in 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork, an originalist who had called for the rollback of the Supreme Court’s civil rights decisions, for a seat on that court.

Reacting to that nomination, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) recognized the importance of the Fourteenth Amendment to equality: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy….”

Kennedy’s comments foreshadowed the world advanced by today’s MAGA Republicans. In 2022 the Supreme Court, stacked as it is with right-wing justices, overturned the federal protection of abortion rights provided in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and sent the question of abortion back to the states, many of which promptly banned the procedure.

When the court overturned the federal protection of abortion rights, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that federal protections for access to birth control and same-sex marriage should also be reexamined. In 2024, President Donald Trump suggested he would be open to letting states decide whether to restrict access to birth control, walking his statement back after a ferocious backlash.

Justice Samuel Alito has joined Thomas in attacking the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that provides federal protection for same-sex marriage, claiming that right, too, ought to be left up to voters in the states, even as Republican-dominated states are passing laws to limit who can vote.

Not only have today’s Republicans launched an attack on the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that the federal government protect Americans against discrimination in the states, President Donald Trump has launched an assault on the birthright citizenship that is the centerpiece of the amendment.

That section of the amendment— the first section— acknowledges that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens,” who enjoy the same rights, and that no state can take those rights away without due process of law.

15 Likes